Alternative Fuels

[Gar Lipow]

Barry Commoner did a great deal of work on the potential of
conservation. The Rocky Mountain Institute led by Amory Lovins does a
great deal on conservation too, but from an enthusiastically pro
capitalist viewpoint. Both point document that we could  use  between
70% and 90% less energy used at a cost equivalent to pumping oil.
Coommoner points out that substantial structural changes would be
required to bring this about, while Lovins suffers from the illusion
that the good old "free market" could do it, with a little prodding.
Even if we reduced consumption by only 70%, used combined wind , and
biomasss to produce another 10%, and left enough existing damn dams in
place to produce an addition 5% that would leave us with fossil fuel
consumption about 15% of current -- which could be stretched out until
improvements are made in either conservation or alternative production
tech.

Incidentally I do not look at an energy "crash" as desirable. Sounds
more like Barbarism than socialism to me. This Does not mean it won't
happen though. The fact that the technology is available at a cost in
resources and labor we can afford does not in our short sighted system
mean that it will be deployed.

This is why the environmental fight needs to be part of left struggle --
not merely to accommodate those attracted to the struggle, but to
prevent disasters which -- to put it extremely mildly -- will be
detrimental to any struggle for a more humane society.  I think an
attempt to predict either the exact date or nature of the disaster we
face is case of precision exceeding accuracy. But I don't think any
sensible person can doubt we are heading towards global catastrophe. I
use catastrophe of course in the techincal sense that the NY Times uses
it -- as a disaster that affects rich people.  Environmental destruction
is already a catastrophe for the poor-- but in conventional politics
this is considered at most a "problem" , more likely a wild accusation
made by fringe elements.